Tag Cloud
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Johnson campaigns gave over $35,000 to create “Strong Mayor” friendly conversation
by Isaac Gonzalez, published on January 17, 2012 at 8:21 AM
Storyline: OPINION
Loading images
Tonight, inside the Sacramento City Hall, supporters of Kevin Johnson’s latest “Strong Mayor” plan, this time called “Checks and Balances”, will ask council members to place their measure on the June 2012 ballot. If enacted, the proposal would drastically change the way local government functions in Sacramento, and it vaguely lays out a path towards a citizens ethical advisory committee and separate redistricting committee. Johnson has argued that it is the people of Sacramento need this change to foster a new era of accountability and transparency at city hall, so with that in mind let’s take a look at some of the groups who are promoting the plan in the local media-sphere, and who is funding them.
Image by: Isaac Gonzalez
In June of this year, “Open Sacramento, The Coalition for Accountable, Efficient and Transparent Government” received over $35,000 from Johnson and his reelection campaign. You can read the entire public filling here.
Before they were “Open Sacramento”, the same group was known as “Sacramentans for Accountable Government.” While “Open” hasn’t updated their website in quite some time, “Sacramento2020.org” has borrowed their rhetoric nearly verbatim.
Image by: Isaac Gonzalez
“Sacramento2020.org” is run by Chris Tapio, the president of a company called “Legislative Strategies”. Tapio’s company has the same address and phone number as “The Sacramento Public Policy Foundation”, a non-profit that has worked on five of the mayor’s largest projects; Think BIG Sacramento, Greenwise Sacramento, Sacramento Steps Forward, For Arts’ Sake Sacramento, and Sacramento First. Tapio even lists himself as SPPF’s Executive Director.
Image by: Isaac Gonzalez
If you think that I’m stretching to make the connection between Tapio, the mayor, and Sacramento2020.org, consider this; Tapio was the mayor’s appointee to the Sacramento Charter Review Committee the first time the Strong Mayor plan was presented back in 2009. Plus every single press release that I’ve received from Sacramento2020.org came for Chris Tapio himself.
Image by: Isaac Gonzalez
Tapio was even a featured contributor to the Sacramento Bee’s “Issue of the Week” that covered the Strong Mayor proposal. The Bee, for whatever reason, didn’t feel that it needed to disclose that Tapio works for the mayor.
Image by: Isaac Gonzalez
-----------------------------------------------
Perhaps if this new proposal wasn't so heavily promising to rein in a new era of accountability and transparency WHILE AT THE SAME TIME using all the worst tricks that have caused voters to distrust nearly everything that comes from politicians, observers such as myself would have so much distrust in the motives behind its supporters.
If you would like to see more information visit ranSACkedmedia.com where we have larger pictures and more links to the websites mentioned in this article.
Disclosure:
Gonzalez owns ranSACkedmedia.com
Flag Article As:
Conversation Express your views,
debate, and be heard with those in your area closest
to the issue.
Leave a Comment
Well done Isaac
Look at the expenditures for Open Sacramento....on the April-June 2011 460 filing.
That $57,079 expenditure was listed as "Office Expenses". However the LLC that it was paid to
Client Trust Account of Ellis Lavoie Poirier Steinheimer & McGee, LLP
Most likely...Bill Camp's legal bill from his legal team.
From the settlement papers:
"Attorneys' fees in the amount of $114,158.00, including hours spent on the reply, are appropriately
awarded to plaintiff, jointly and severally against both defendants Hiltachk and City
114,158/2=$57,079.00....sound familiar?
How's that for transparency...office expenses.....compared to settlement payment.
34-2009-00065404-CU-MC-GDS The strong mayor 1 lawsuit
By paying off their existing debts...along with having a number of loans and debts forgiven by the strong mayor 1 backers....the ending balance of that PAC is zero...and they can then cease to exist......of course they re-created themselves as Better Sacramento PAC,
So Johnson felt compelled to help pay Hiltachk's half of the legal bill caused by the SMI lawsuit...but not the city's...pretty poor....yet similar to his "loan" to St. Hope following his actions as CEO there which resulted in that fine levied by the US of A.
All of the case documents from the previous lawsuit are available at saccourt,ca,gov
go to online services, Civil & Probate Documents and Tentative Ruling Viewer, and use the case number provided.
We do know that Johnson paid for the Maslin Poll out of campaign cash...and that he won't release the actual poll.
And although it's been reported that he raised over 500,000 in 2011....he still hasn't dented that 500,000 loan he made to his previous campaign....
The city needs to curtail unlimited amounts of money being loaned by a candidate to their personal campaigns in the same manner that the state does, The Governor can only have $100,000 cumulative outstanding personal loans to his own campaigns....Johnson has 5x that much...what's wrong with that picture?
http://www.trbu.com/index.html
If they come out the gate deceptive how are we suppose to trust we'll get accountability when we can't get transparency? And the pope will call a spade a spade- no deception- and is transparent regarding the church position on pro life. I don't think you can compare the two, and comparing Johnson and his supporters to the pope is like comparing apples to gratefruits and putting sugar on it to make it sweet.
Fred Hiestand is the father of Kevin Hiestand who is the former lawyer for St. Hope
Tracy Stigler was a member of the St. Hope Board of Directors
Joseph Rodota served as an adviser to Kevin Johnson's mayoral campaign
I know, without the article and comments that followed, I would have been in the dark. Thanks for bringing it to light. I bet this information won’t be discussed in any mayor open house forums or alleged community discussions. Sadly, you aren’t the public servant elected into office so the information shared from fifthgensacramentan and Isaac should have came from the Mayor and his advisors--who allegedly work for the people. Otherwise it appears our mayor elected to represent The People is looking after Himself and his own hidden or not so hidden agenda--That's a red flag in itself towards this initiative.
Look, I don't trust any politician as much as any of you don't trust any politician, but the fact is, there will be a vote on this initiative and we ought to know why or why not we support it seperate and apart from our feelings on Kevin Johnson. The City of Sacramento is larger than Kevin Johnson and this issue matters.
I don't want to form an opionion on a charter reform of this city's governance based on my feelings for one guy.
http://www.cityofsacramento.org/charter/documents/CRC_Final_Report.pdf
pgs 16-18 of which on pgs 17 & 18 they give 8 strong reasons
Here's 3 of them
1. Accountability. At the local level, the existing unified system is more accountable than would
be a divided system. Under a divided framework, residents often have difficulty knowing who
is actually responsible for a particular decision or policy. This point is well illustrated by the
federal system, wherein presidents have often blamed Congress while Congress blames the
White House. With a single body being responsible, it is clear that the City Council, of which
the Mayor is a voting participant, ultimately is solely responsible for the City's policymaking
decisions. Put simply, under a unified system, there is no place to "pass the buck," since all
power and responsibility rests with the City Council.
2. Representative and Inclusive. In contrast to the federal and state governments, the decisions
of local governing bodies, such as land use and direct public services, affect the daily lives of
city residents in a more direct, immediate way. A unified governing body tends to incorporate
the most diverse range of opinion, and is therefore more representative of the views of the
community as a whole. In contrast, a divided government structure is more likely to result in
policy decisions with "winners" and "losers." In the words of the International City-County
Management Association ( ICMA), the Council-Manager form of local government "encourages
neighborhood input into the political process, diffuses the power of special interests, and
eliminates partisan politics from municipal hiring, firing, and contracting decisions."
7. Clear Direction to Consolidated Staff. Divided government results in two staffs, one under the
direction of the City Council and another under the direction of the Mayor. An advantage of the
existing city unified structure is that there is a single consolidated group of professional staff
under the direction of the City Manager, who is responsible to the full City Council.
So after getting a smack down by the courts, why didn't KJ and Team End Run go to a constitutionally ordained process? Instead they are again attempting to strong-arm a revision onto the ballot...that they wrote. When you write the rules...who wins?